7 great quotes from Pope Benedict XVI

Today marks a historic time in the history of the Church and the world. A Pope has announced his upcoming resignation, the first time since 1415. Pope Benedict XVI cited health reasons for his stepping down. In light of this, I thought I would share some of the great quotes from him as Pope or during his years prior. In no particular order (and certainly not an exhaustive list!):

1.  [T]he Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. (Apostolic Letter "Summorum Pontificum" issued Motu Proprio, July 7, 2007)

This quote is a summary of Pope Benedict's encouragement of the Latin liturgy. As Catholics, we believe in a solidarity and unification with Christian heritage, not amputated from our predecessors, but united to them. The very language and form of the Latin liturgy brings a special unity with that tradition, as well as a piety and alert to divine grandeur in such signs as the priest, together with the people, facing and worshipping God. The recent language translation of the vernacular liturgy seems an echo of that reality when the priest says, "Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God..."

Many believe the Moto Proprio contributed to the lifting of excommunications of several members of the St. Pius X Society, hopefully bringing them into union with the Church.

2. It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free. (Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Bishops of England and Wales, February 1, 2010)

This quote catches my attention for a number of reasons. In our modern society, all too often does commercial media and the like attempt to cite someone who claims to be Catholic, as a legitimate voice for the Church, particularly when it comes to matters of truth in faith or morals. There exists an ignorance in the media and those who accept their suggestions. They proceed ignorantly that the Magisterium has an apostolic teaching pedigree linking it to Christ that does not exist among dissidents, or at the very least, they do not make the effort to let the reader know this is what the Church teaches. The secularist could get a vague grasp on this if they compare it to if the media continually paraded scientists who denied any form of evolution as representative of science in general. The media sometimes seems to characterize the Magisterium as versus the people, while ignoring the faithful Catholics who recognize Church teaching. It is of great value that the visible leader of the Church articulated this matter.

Another side-reason I like this quote is because the Pope here points out the source of truth revealed through the twin channels of Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium only serves to communicate those truths under the guidance of the Spirit. Sometimes, well-meaning Catholics refer to a "3-legged stool" with regard to Church teaching which includes Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. The 3-legged stool refers to the idea that if any leg of the stool is removed, the stool collapses. I tend to shy away from that analogy because it requires care to communicate that the Magisterium is not like the other two, and the analogy may be confusing for that reason. The Magisterium is not a source. It is the recipient. The Pope summarizes this tidily in the above quote.

3. The transforming 'moment' of [Purgatory] cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of 'short' or 'long' duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The 'temporal measure' of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an 'existential time,' in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the world. ... [Purgatory] is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. ... Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 230-231, 1988)

I may cite this in forums more than any other quote. First, the entire context of the section on Purgatory has profound Scriptural exegesis, with an emphasis on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Much of that discussion can be read in the prior post What is Purgatory? I appreciate his emphasis in not trying to obtusely assign some quantum measurement to a reality that is first and foremost theological. Many times have I seen forum-dwellers ask how "long" purgatory lasts, and this quote is always helpful. Additionally, the Pope here focuses on the entire purpose of purification, of purgation, in a single phrase to make a person "capable of Christ." The emphasis is on the holiness of Christ, union with whom no blemish is compatible. He then unites the entire figure of burning from 1 Corinthians to "encounter with the Lord," drawing out theology from the imagery, as if a precious, gold statue were immolated and purged of all the mire clinging to it because of the very radiance of Christ in its presence, transforming it into himself, the unblemished lamb. This exegesis and theology is Ratzinger/Benedict at his best. I can even remember speaking on a forum with an Anglican, whom embraced the idea of purgatory as Ratzinger articulated it similarly in his encyclical Spe Salvi.

4. [T]his Apostolic Constitution provides the general normative structure for regulating the institution and life of Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner. (Pope Benedict XVI, Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 1, 2009)

Some 400,000+ Anglicans converted to the Catholic Church thanks to the Pope's above Apostolic Constitution which facilitated the matter. As with the encouragement of the Latin liturgy attracting many traditional Catholics, the Pope reached out to Anglicans whom believed their church had derailed from truth.

5. Again and again it astonishes us that God makes himself a child so that we may love him, so that we may dare to love him, and as a child trustingly lets himself be taken into our arms. It is as if God were saying: I know that my glory frightens you, and that you are trying to assert yourself in the face of my grandeur. So now I am coming to you as a child, so that you can accept me and love me. (Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas Eve Homily, 2012)

This is one of those quotes that bears a certain brilliance in its simplicity, and focuses on a topic native to all of Pope Benedict's works, that is, love. The Pope here points out a sometimes forgotten attribute of God, which he draws from the revelation of the Incarnation itself. God wills to condescend himself beneath man, even though He is ultimately man's master. He willed to subject Himself to man on man's behalf, a people He does not "need," but has created them and suffered for them, that they might ever spend eternity in a never-ending banquet of joy with Him, all for love.

6. Love—caritas—will always prove necessary, even in the most just society. There is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love. Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such. There will always be suffering which cries out for consolation and help. There will always be loneliness. There will always be situations of material need where help in the form of concrete love of neighbour is indispensable. The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. The Church is one of those living forces: she is alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritatis Est, 28b, 2005)

Speaking of love, here the Pope clarifies the idea that mankind only needs material things when we minister to them. Mother Teresa was a great example of doing both, giving physical care and yet recognizing the need to care for the soul. We also see in the Pope's quote a timely caution with regard to the power of the State, especially in light of the current government attempting to impose certain of its own dogmatic beliefs onto religious entities.

7. The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. ... As the number of her adherents diminishes...she will lose many of her social privileges. ... But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret. (Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, Faith and Future, 1969)

This quote sounds, to the Christian's ears, discouraging at first, that the Church may shrink in size. Yet, over forty years ago, Ratzinger foresaw society's continuing disregard for the Church, up to and including misrepresentation of the papacy (See for example TCV articles on false pope history at Huffpost and misquoted in UK Telegraph). This has certainly come to pass in many regards in many cultural circles. However, he also sees in that trajectory a purer church, stocked with a renewed spiritual zeal in its simplicity. In a sense, it ties into his purgatory quote, that through a process of purging, a purer product emerges from the other side.

Psychology of a Pedophile

We have seen over the years various responses to the Church's pedophila abuse scandal, which largely broke in the media in 2002. These have included greater scrutiny and openness among bishops and clergy with regards to reporting, stricter sanctions, the implementation of various third party investigations, and even calls from dissenting Church affiliates for married priests or women priests or a shakeup of Church sexual teaching. There are valid responses to these issues, whether they be implementation, rebuttal, or explanation of the truth of Church doctrine on faith and morals (see for example 10 Myths About Priestly Pedophilia from Crisis Magazine or anything by Philip Lawler on the matter (see CatholicCulture or his book The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture).

For the purposes of this post, I'd like to draw attention to a dimension of the matter perhaps forgotten, unknown, or ignored.

THE PATTERN
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned Professor Charol Shakeshaft, on staff with Hofstra University and Virginia Commonwealth University, conducted a study revealing widespread child sexual abuse statistics among the nation's educators and school staff.  Citing several different researchers, the study states:

As a group, these studies present a wide range of estimates of the percentage of U.S. students subject to sexual misconduct by school staff and vary from 3.7 to 50.3 percent.   Because of its carefully drawn sample and survey methodology, the AAUW [American Association of University Women] report that nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career presents the most accurate data available at this time.

Last year, the high profile case of Jerry Sandusky, arrested for sexual molestation, centered around the non-profit he founded––The Second Mile, a charity ministering to at-risk youth.

Also last year, the Boy Scouts of America released 20 years of data regarding sexual abuse occurring within its boundaries. Studies regarding the Girl Scouts are hard to find, although it is, unfortunately, easy to find cases of abuse occurring by Girl Scout leaders in only a few minutes of searching.

A characteristic common to persons in these professions––priests, educators, youth volunteers, scout leaders, or related professions––is their proximity to children in the very line of work.

ADMISSION OF A CONVICTED PEDOPHILE
Not long after the 2002 Church scandal broke, I came across the August 2003 issue of Psychology Today. In that issue is an article called The Mind of a Child Molester (PDF here).

The first-person confession is adapted from the book Conversations With a Pedophile by Amy Hammel-Zabin. The perpetrator, referenced only as the imprisoned "Alan X," describes the temptation toward molesting other boys even when he was very young himself. In his teen years, he eyed a 10 year old neighbor. In order to gain access to the boy, he volunteered to mow the neighbor's lawn and worked his way to baby-sitting. Aware of the disorder, Alan admits:

After high school I joined the military for a couple of years in the hopes I could alter my path away from pedophilia.

Notice when Alan desired to act out his disorder, he worked his way toward the place where he could find a victim. When he tried to avoid his disorder, he went toward a place where he could not access his preferred victims. Soon after, he returned to his deviance and returned from the military. He writes:

One of the first things I did in my efforts to get established was to associate myself with a local church, one that, of course, sponsored a small Boy Scouts troop. Two months after I joined...[t]he elders asked me to take over [as scoutmaster], and I declined. I desperately wanted to once again be in a position where I was surrounded by young boys but I did not want to take that step until I had the entire congregation convinced that I was doing this with extreme reluctance.

Alan proceeded to build trust among victims and subsequently abused them.

One thing pertinent in this account is the perpetrator's deviance was not borne of his association with the church or the Boy Scouts. Rather, his disorder existed prior to joining those organizations. He brought the disorder to the venue in which he could live out his disorder. And he faked various attitudes to give the impression of his sincerity. He pretended to be a legitimate scout master, when in fact, his motive was ill-rooted.

BEING ALERT TO THE PHENOMENON
The ministerial priesthood, education, youth volunteer groups, scouts, and other related groups fit the desired profile for such a disordered pedophile. Thus, those whom criticize such organizations as themselves the cause for the disorder may be well off the mark, such as in the case of Alan X.

This seems to be an extension of the psychological condition of a wish fulfillment, medically defined thusly: "In psychoanalytic theory, the satisfaction of a desire, need, or impulse through a dream or other exercise of the imagination." However, in the case of some deviants, the satisfaction of the disorder goes beyond the imagination, and into reality, as in the above case study.

Several years ago, the Church moved to implement psychological screening for pedophilia in seminaries. The Church, and the other organizations, should at least be aware of how they might be viewed by a potential pedophile, how they might be viewed as utilitarian for a perpetrator's disorder. Being alert to this phenomenon, and working with psychological professionals, could prove beneficial in preventing abuse and helping those with the disorder.

Does veneration of saints "take away from Christ"?

If you are a Catholic, perhaps you've heard, or if you are a non-Catholic, perhaps you've said something like this forum poster regarding prayer to or veneration of Mary and the saints like this one: "Praying to saints takes away glory from God."

I touched on part of this topic earlier in Praying to Saints: A Visual Aid. I was recently reminded of a passage in Scripture that prompted me to build upon this topic:

And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads." And I said, "Who are you, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting." (Acts 26:14-15)

Jesus associates the members of his body with himself. Consider if a critic, using the same reasoning as the opening paragraph above, said, "I am persecuting Christians, not Christ. My focus is not on Christ." But according to Christ himself, that is not accurate, for Christ bears such solidarity with his members, that he told Saul that Saul persecuted him.

The critic may respond that persecution and veneration are not valid comparisons. But if we insist upon that, we end up saying Christ has solidarity with his members when they are persecuted but not when they are honored. That would certainly be a peculiar idea without reason. It is especially unfounded when we consider what Scripture says about the togetherness of the body in good times or bad:

Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. (Romans 12:15)

Jesus also gives at least one other example in Scripture where he associates in the same way with those who are treated both well and poorly.

"And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, `"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." ... Then they also will answer, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?" Then he will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me." (Matthew 25:39-40, 44-45)

In the above Matthean passage, Christ expresses the ultimate solidarity with the members of his body whether they are persecuted or ministered to. Feeding a hungry member is to feed Christ. Forsaking a hungry member, is to forsake Christ.

Though it is possible to venerate to excess, to even idolize another Christian, proper veneration is a worthwhile cause. For if we justly venerate members of the body, Christ tells us we venerate him.

Keys Comic

Click image for magnified view.

Novel "First Unseen" coming soon

For those who don't know, my novel First Unseen is projected for release around February 2013. I've set up an author website at www.samentile.com. Visit the site for more information and to stay abreast of release details!

3 false mantras intended to silence the Church

In today's entry, I examine 3 mantras or buzz terms extant in today's media and culture, each of which are logically flawed arguments, and each of which are intended to gather support for the censorship of the Church. Sometimes these statements are made by non-Catholics, and sometimes they are made by those who claim to be Catholics in good standing.

#1 - THE CHURCH NEEDS TO CLEAN UP ITS OWN PROBLEMS FIRST!

This type of argument is perhaps most commonly seen in news story comboxes.

Examples:

An ABC News commenter writes: "As soon as the Catholic Church cleans their own moral house – they can tell Catholics and Non-Catholics how to live their lives." A Minnesota Minnpost commenter writes: "Until the Catholic Church can clean up there own sins, [they don't] have any right to talk about any law." In another paraphrased echo, a Nov. 2012 CNN blog responder writes: "The catholic church needs to clean up their own pedophile-filled sewer before they try telling anyone else how to think."

Admittedly, comboxes are havens for high emotion and bombast. But this mantra is extraordinarily prevalent and not exclusive to comboxes. I distinctly remember 670 The Score host Mike North, prior to his departure from the station a few years ago, make the exact same argument in response to some public statement from a member of the clergy.

But all of these comments have the same basic demand. The Church must remain silent as long as sin exists within it. The problems with this argument are multifold.

To begin, these arguments, all recent, are founded on the myth that the Church does not address sins within the Church, particularly with regard to the pedophilia scandal of recent years. The folks over at TheMediaReport.com have cataloged a number of statistics on the improvement in Church self-policing in the last 10 years, in addition to stories often overlooked, such as false accusations that have falsely nourished the myth of universal sex abuse or other scandal in the Church. The Church has also permitted third party investigations, including the vast and recent John Jay report last year. The Church has called for seminary screening to include psychological tests in an effort to prevent infiltrators from abusing the priestly office. Early in the exposure of the scandal, the American Church brought in Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI agent to remedy the situation. The Church's response goes on and on. To argue that the response could be "better" or not is beside the point. Those who argue the Church doesn't address these matters are simply advancing falsehoods.

Secondly, these comments calling for silence are often addressed to priests or bishops who are by all accounts innocent of any scandal. What justice is there for my local priest, innocent of the crimes of a minute percentage of his peers, to suddenly forfeit the entire purpose of his ministry and refuse to teach morality from the pulpit? The demand is nonsensical on its face.

And third, imagine the following analogy. Mr. & Mrs. Smith have two sons. The elder son is caught taking harmful and illegal drugs. The parents have a talk with the elder son. But soon after, he acquires the drugs again, and is involved in an ongoing drug problem. Meanwhile, Mrs. Smith finds out that Mr. Smith has a certain addiction to visiting strip clubs. This has caused an obvious additional rift in their marriage and in the family. Finally, the youngest son decides to become a petty thief. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a talk with the younger son, explaining to him that it is wrong to steal. The younger son back-talks to his parents, to those in charge of "shepherding" him. He tells his parents they have enough sin to deal with in their household. The parents admit their problems and their ongoing efforts to solve them, but the younger son ignores the concession. He says "until" they "clean up" their sins, he will go on stealing. The younger son demands the parents' voice be silenced.

At the end of the day, where does the younger son fail? Do the parents have problems in their home? Yes. Do they admit the problem? Yes. Are the parents still the parents? Yes. Does the younger son ever confront the idea that stealing is wrong? No. That is where the younger son, the one who attempts to silence those who love him, fails. Stealing is right or wrong independent of the parents' personal problems. The association made by the youngest son is therefore flawed. And regardless of their ongoing issues, loving parents retain every right and obligation to articulate the immorality of thievery.


#2 - THE CHURCH IS ARCHAIC!

Another method to avoid confronting the teachings of the Church is to accuse the Church's positions of being archaic or old-fashioned.

Examples:

Raymond Gravel, an openly dissident Canadian priest, is quoted: "The leaders of the Catholic Church...have locked themselves up in their archaic and obsolete doctrines...they refuse any re-definition of marriage that would allow homosexual couples to legalize their union." Pamela Haag, appearing in the Huffington Post (whose erroneous, anti-papacy material I addressed previously) writes in defense of abortion and modern "sex": "Without access to affordable, reliable, convenient birth control, heterosexual men's and women's sex lives are effectively rolled back to the pre-Griswald 1930s." Following the Pope's recent utilization of Twitter, an anti-Catholic cartoon caricatured the Pope as saying: "This 21st century technology is great for spreading my 15th century views on gays, women and contraception!"

What is perhaps most peculiar about this line of argumentation is the insinuation that if an idea has an older or ancient pedigree, it must be wrong. Again, the accusation is nonsensical on its face. My eyebrow of suspicion is especially raised at the lack of similar accusations against modern scientists who continue to advance Isaac Newton's 17th century views on gravity and physics. Or where are the opponents of the applicability of Shakespeare's 16th century philosophies on love and other realms? Let's not even mention those professors who keep using Pythagoras' archaic 6th century B.C. mathematics!

The main point, of course, is that this "appeal to modernism" (argumentum ad novitatem) logical fallacy fails to confront the substance at hand. Consider abortion. For example, if the Church teaches abortion is wrong because it kills a person in the womb, then attempting to confront that claim by calling it "archaic" neither defeats the Church's position nor supports the arguer's position. It doesn't tell you anything about the validity of the argument. It instead treats it like a style of clothing. It says, "The Church has been pro-life for 2,000 years––you wouldn't want to support that any more than bell-bottoms, right? You'd be out of fashion!"

Secretly, the "archaic" line of argument defeats itself, for its logic defers to a future postulator that calls it old-fashioned.


#3 - THE CHURCH IS "INTOLERANT," "BIGOTED," AND "[INSERT DEROGATORY NAME-CALL HERE]"

Let's cut right to some examples:

Quoted in the UK Telegraph, a dissident group that rejects Church doctrine called the Church "mysoginist," "homophobic," and "intolerant." A gay rights group in England named Cardinal Keith O'Brien "Bigot of the Year," for believing same-sex unions are not "marriages." In May 2012, NY Times opiner Maureen Dowd wrote an article which warned in the headline of "the church's intolerance," and went on to claim that the Church is "intent on loyalty testing, mind control and heresy hunting. Rather than all-embracing, the church hierarchy has become all-constricting."

Let's forget for a moment about the 800-lb gorilla of irony who ghost wrote Ms. Dowd's column, and how her column is a test of the Church's loyalty to Ms. Dowd's views, is an attempt to influence the minds of her readers to her position, is an accusation that the Church has violated Ms. Dowd's defined heresies of "intolerance," and has constricted the Church's option on doctrine to the boundaries Ms. Dowd has set. I don't even know what to make of the "mind control" comment, but I pray I am not writing this with the spiraling eyes of a drone.

But what is the issue here, once again? None of these name-calling monickers confront the Church's actual position. They are strawmen or perhaps, more accurately, non sequiturs. If the Church believes that a sacrament, such as the priesthood, demands terrestrial representation of that which it signifies, and therefore maleness must be characteristic to depict Christ, the incarnate male bridegroom of the Church, then what productivity is there in simply shouting "mysoginists!" as a response? The same would apply to the Church's view of the complimentarity of males and females with regard to marriage, or the Church's view of life, etc...

If one refuses to confront the Church's position on the natural and theological plane and foundation from which it is taught, one can hardly seek refuge in name-calling as an adequate substitute. Instead many of the accusers have set up certain doctrines of their own. And those who do not comply are branded bigots of some sort.


EPILOGUE

There was a time when anti-Church accusers would prop up the Inquisition as one of a handful of historical events when trying to establish mistrust in the Church. Their view of the Inquisition was that the Church forced people to comply with Church doctrines or face quantifiable persecution. Today, that same activity is taking place and now faces the American courts. Catholic or other religious institutions are threatened under penalty of potentially crippling fines to embrace the state's doctrine of the virtue of funding birth control, abortifacients, and other bodily dysfunctioning sterilization procedures. Those who do not comply are branded as bigots, intolerant, archaic, and told to clean their sins before fines or potential arrests to civil disobedience are administered. What is it but a 21st century "Inquisition"? Have the Church's critics gone so far as to become what they have purported to loathe?

In 1942, C.S. Lewis's book The Screwtape Letters was published. It is a fictional tale utilizing theological perspectives. In it we read letters from a master demon counseling his apprentice as to how to lead a certain man assigned to the apprentice to hell. Page 1 contains the following excerpt:

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.

And so when you see various false mantras assigned to the Church in an effort to silence Her, remember to ask yourself, what is the Church's actual position? Can I articulate it in a way the Church would recognize as Her own argument? Is dismissing the Church's position as "archaic" or "intolerant" an adequately reasonable or just response?